Test of Infant Motor Performance (TIMP): discriminatory, predictive (according to thetimp.com)

  • Newly launched online learning program for the TIMP
    • 9 learning modules, which includes lectures by the TIMP designers and other workshop instructors, videos of the TIMP in action, and comprehension assessments of the material and score test item video clips
    • $500 for individual course enrollment (discount for 4 or more enrollees)
  • Materials required for testing:
    • Rattle with a soft, not sharp or harsh sound. Maracha toys are suitable as are plastic eggs or boxes filled with popcorn or rice.
    • Squeaky object with a soft, not whispery nor harsh sound; many 4-5” dog toys from pet stores are useful but latex items must be avoided.
    • Shiny red ball approximately 55 mm or 2 inches in diameter.
    • An age calculation wheel that allows automatic calculation of corrected age or chronologic age up to 18 weeks post-term based on expected date of birth is required to accurately evaluate performance against age expectations from the TIMP and TIMPSI normative studies; specially designed wheels for this purpose are available for sale on the TIMP products page
  • Otherwise, all other information up to date.
  • Review of article utilizing TIMP:

Cardoso, Aline Christine das Neves, Ana Carolina de Campos, Mariana Martins dos Santos, Denise Castilho Cabrera Santos, and Nelci Adriana Cicuto Ferreira Rocha. “Motor Performance of Children With Down Syndrome and Typical Development at 2 to 4 and 26 Months:” Pediatric Physical Therapy 27, no. 2 (2015): 135–41. doi:10.1097/PEP.0000000000000120.

The purpose of this article was to compare the gross motor performance of typically developing (TD) children and children with Down Syndrome (DS) and see if there was a relation between their early motor development (2 to 4 months old) and outcome at an older age (2 years old). Data was collected in two phases: Phase 1 was performed when both groups (TD & DS) were 2-4 months old and used the TIMP to look at gross motor movement; Phase 2 was performed when the children were 2 years old and used the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (Bayley-III) to assess gross motor movement. In Phase 1, 10 TD infants were compared to 7 infants with DS. Ten of these original 17 participants returned for Phase 2 so therefore, 15 more children were recruited to participate in Phase 2, totaling 25 children: 13 TD, 12 DS. Depending on the Phase, the respective test was administered, scores recorded, and a two-way ANOVA for the TIMP to compare the effect of group and age on the scores, whereas an independent samples t-test was performed for the Bayley-III scores to compare the TD & DS groups in Phase 2. The researchers found that TD infants scored significantly higher on the TIMP and the Bayley-III than DS infants. The regression analysis that was performed to compare the two tests, generated results that supported the TIMP’s predictive abilities of motor performance later in life compared to the results found during the child’s early months. This study’s strengths are: well organized, thought-out topic, good analytical testing performed to assess results found during the phases, and good interpretation of the data. The limitations of this study are: small sample size, high dropout rate between phase 1 and phase 2 making it hard to compare results found in phase 1 to phase 2. Overall, this article did a great job of utilizing the TIMP for children with potential delays in motor development (in this instance Down Syndrome), and was able to support it’s discriminatory and predictive qualities.